D 2.2 Mapping of weakness, strengths and competences of...

Improving Crisis Communication Skills in Health Emergency

Management

i

This project has been funded with the support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained herein. Project Number: 527535-LLP-1-2012-1-PT-LEONARDO-LMP

D 2.2 – Mapping of weakness, strengths and competences of target groups

WP2 – Identification of target groups’ training needs and competences

European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE)

27 September 2013

Project Number: 527535-LLP-1-2012-1-PT-LEONARDO-LMP


Management

ii


Partners:

Project Coordinator:

INOVAMAIS – Serviços de Consultadoria em Inovação

Tecnológica

www.inovamais.eu

Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Brescia

www.aslbrescia.it

HOPE – European Hospital and Healthcare Federation

www.hope.be

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

www.en.uni-muenchen.de

Aarhus Social and Healthcare College

www.sosuaarhus.dk

Artica Telemedicina

www.articatelemedicina.com

http://www.inovamais.eu/

http://www.aslbrescia.it/

http://www.hope.be/

http://www.en.uni-muenchen.de/

http://www.sosuaarhus.dk/

http://www.articatelemedicina.com/


Management

iii


D 2.2 – Mapping of weakness, strengths and

competences of target groups

WP2 – Identification of target groups’ training needs and competences

European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE)

27 September 2013


Management

iv


Contents

1- Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

2 - Objectives and Methodology ................................................................................................... 2

3 - Global SWOT analysis ............................................................................................................... 4

3.1. Respondents’ profile .................................................................................................... 4

3.2. SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................. 8

3.3. SWOT Matrix .............................................................................................................. 16

4 - SWOT analysis by country ...................................................................................................... 17

4.1. Denmark .................................................................................................................... 17

4.2. Germany .................................................................................................................... 26

4.3. Italy ............................................................................................................................ 36

4.4. Portugal ...................................................................................................................... 46

4.5. Spain .......................................................................................................................... 55

5 - Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 64

6 - Annexes .................................................................................................................................. 66

6.1. Annex I - Health C survey ........................................................................................... 66

6.2. Annex II – Summary of data ....................................................................................... 71


Management

1


1- Introduction

The mapping of weaknesses, strengths and competences of the target groups (SWOT analysis)

presented in this report is the final step of WP2, dedicated to the identification of the target

groups’ training needs and competences.

The main objective of the SWOT analysis is to serve as guidelines for the development of a

training course on communication in emergency situations and the respective training

materials, including a toolkit, which represent the overreaching objective of the Health C

project.

Data for this report have been collected through a survey1, which ran at European level from

July 5th until August 16th 2013, obtaining a total of 431 responses.

The report is divided into three sections:

1) the first section clarifies the objectives of the survey and the methodology used for

the analysis of the replies relevant to this report;

2) the second section presents a global SWOT analysis;

3) in the third section SWOT analysis are developed for the countries part of the Health

C consortium (i.e. Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain).

At the end of the second and third sections, a SWOT Matrix provides a short summary of the

analysis, illustrating the top three weaknesses, strengths, threats and opportunities identified.

1 See Annex I


Management

2


2 - Objectives and Methodology

The Health C project aims at supporting health authorities’ staff in the development of the

competences required for managing communication in emergency situations caused by a

health crisis in a scenario of transnational emergencies. The main results will include the

development of a training course in communication in emergency situations and the

respective training material, including a tool-kit.

The SWOT analysis presented in this report is a fundamental step in this direction, since it

serves as guidelines for the development of the training course in a way that it can give

response to the weaknesses identified, take into account the opportunities detected, foster

the strengths and look for solutions to avoid potential threats affecting health crisis

communication. In this way, it will help the project to focus on the real existing gaps and the

target groups’ needs.

In order to collect the data useful for the SWOT analysis, three questions (7, 8 and 9) were

inserted in a common survey for WP2 and WP3 (Annex I). The survey ran at European level

from July 5th until August 16th 2013, obtaining a total of 431 responses. It was administered

electronically, sent by e-mail by the Health C partners to the target groups identified in their

respective countries and with the European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE)

addressing its network at EU level. In particular, the target groups addressed were health

authorities (health managers as well as communication managers) and health professionals

(hospitals managers as well as health care personnel). The survey was translated in English,

Danish, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.

The objective of these three specific questions was to obtain an overview of the strengths and

weaknesses of the target groups, in order to have a better understanding of their competences

and needs, and receive a feedback on opportunities and threats having the potential to

contribute or hamper an effective crisis communication.

For each question, a list of factors was pre-indicated, with the possibility for the respondent to

add others if needed. Questions and the list of factors were defined taking into account the

inputs and preliminary results of three focus groups carried out between March and May 2013

in Germany, Italy and Portugal, as well as using previous knowledge partners acquired through

literature review. A brainstorming session also took place during the first consortium meeting

(held on 16th May 2013) in order to better define the structure of the questionnaire.

A five-point scale was used to identify the need for improvement in relation to the proposed

factors considered as strengths/weaknesses in crisis communication and the degree of

importance of potential threats and opportunities. Participants were asked to respond

according to their view and experience and responses were treated anonymously.

After having provided a complete overview of the replies obtained for each question, to draw

the SWOT analysis and identify weaknesses, strengths, opportunities and threats, the following


Management

3


methodology has been adopted: we considered as weaknesses, opportunities and threats the

factors that obtained the highest scores in the top two boxes (i.e. the highest rating points on

the scale, corresponding to “need to improve” and “much need to improve” or “important”

and “very important”). Inversely, we considered as strengths the factors that obtained the

highest scores in the bottom two boxes (i.e. the lowest rating points on the scale,

corresponding to “no need to improve” and “little need to improve”).

Furthermore, to facilitate the analysis and the interpretation of results, factors have been

grouped under four main categories for weaknesses and strengths (Standards & processes;

Ways of communication; Involved stakeholders & target groups; Media) and three categories

for threats and opportunities (Economic factors, Political factors and Social & Cultural factors).

A detailed summary of responses is also available in Annex II.


Management

4


3 - Global SWOT analysis

This section presents a global SWOT analysis of the target groups’ strengths and weaknesses,

with a focus also on opportunities and threats. The analysis is based on the total 431 responses

received. In the global SWOT analysis, it was decided to take into account replies received not

only from the countries of the partnership but also from other countries, so to have a wider

overview of target groups’ competences and needs at European level. In this way, the training

course and the toolkit will have the potential to be used in the future by the target groups in

countries other than those represented in the Health C consortium.

3.1. Respondents’ profile

Country

Responses were received from participants working in different countries but mainly from

those represented in the Health C consortium: Italy (21,8%), Germany (19,3%), Spain (13,9%),

Portugal (9,7%) Denmark (9,5%) and Belgium (3%).

Fig. 1 – Partners working country

3,0%9,5%

19,3%

21,8%9,7%

13,9%

22,7%

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Other, please specify

A significant number of responses was received from participants working in other countries:

Malta (2,6%), Greece (2,6%), United Kingdom (2,3%), Finland (2,1%), Sweden (1,9%), Austria

(1,6%), the Netherlands (1,6%), Slovenia (1,4%), Switzerland (1,4%), France (1,4%), Serbia

(1,2%), Poland (0,7%) and Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania (2,1%).


Management

5


Fig. 2 – Other countries

1,6%

2,1%1,4%

2,6%

2,6%

1,6%

0,7%

1,2% 1,4%1,9%

1,4%

2,3%

2,1%

22,7%

77,3%

Partners countries

Austria

Finland

France

Greece

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Serbia

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Romania

Type of organization

The majority of the respondents to the Health C survey work for hospitals, medical care

centers and medical practices (45,9%) and for governmental and health authorities (34,1%).

The remaining work for research and education organizations (5,8%), health professionals or

medical associations (4,4%), voluntary associations (1,6%) and insurance companies (1,2%).

Besides, 5,3% of respondents indicated to work for other types of organizations not present

among the proposed items. These include:

- physicians’ and doctors’ associations;

- foundations;

- public corporations in the health sector;

- consumers’ and patients’ organizations;

- health offices;

- health emergency departments;

- primary health care centers;

- NGOs,;

- hospital associations;

- local health departments;

- fire department;

- civil protection.


Management

6


Fig. 3 – Type of organization

34,1%

45,9%

4,4%

1,2%

5,8%

1,6%

5,3%1,6% Governmental and health

authorities

Hospitals, medical care centers,medical practices

Health professional or medicalassociations

Insurance companies

Research & educationorganizations

Voluntary Associations


Not replied

Working area

The majority of respondents work in the medical/health care (34,3%) and management

(26,5%) areas. The rest declared to work in the communication (Press Department/Public

Relations) (13,9%), administration (9,7%), training (3,5%) and research (3,5%) areas.

Also, 6,3% of respondents work in an area which was not present among the proposed items.

These include:

- health/healthcare management;

- emergency and disaster medicine;

- health education;

- policy;

- consulting;

- social work;

- Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Information Technologies (IT);

- quality and safety;

- nursing care;

- public health;

- supporting services;

- risk management.

Respondents were also asked about the number of years they worked in the professional area

mentioned in question 2. Responses show that the average years worked in the professional

area is 15,20 years.


Management

7


Fig. 4 – Working area

13,9%

34,3%

3,5%

26,5%

9,7%

3,5%

6,3%2,3% Communication (Press

Department/Public Relations)

Medical/health care

Research

Management

Administration

Training


Not replied

Operational level

Respondents were also asked to state at which operational level they work. Almost half of

participants work at local level (46,9%), the remaining working at regional (30,6%), national

(18,8%) European (1,2%) and worldwide (1,6%) levels.

Fig. 5 – Operational level

46,9%

30,6%

18,8%

1,2%1,6%

0,9%

Local (city, town, county)

Regional (federal state, region)

National (country)

Europe

Worldwide

Not replied


Management

8


3.2. SWOT Analysis

Overview of replies (Weaknesses and Strengths)

In question 7 the target groups were asked to rate several factors related to crisis

communication, in accordance with their view and experience. The chart below provides an

overview of the obtained answers. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.

Fig. 6 – Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

A common understanding and definition of health crisis

Regular cooperation between all stakeholders involved in the crisis communication process

Involvement of local organizations in the information exchange process

Involvement of health professionals (e.g. physicians, nurses) in the communication process

Establishment of a standardized communication procedure (guidelines) within an organization

Availability of designated spokespersons

Communication competence of health authority staff and health experts

Use of external communication experts

Understanding the news production process

Disclosure of uncertainties

Consistent and reliable information in all communication channels

Sense of responsibility of the media to provide adequate information

Identification and use of suitable media channels

Involvement of voluntary organizations in the communication process

Quick provision of information

Monitoring and evaluation of communication activities

Maintenance of trust in health authorities

Knowledge of the target groups and how they get their information

No need to improve Little need to improve Medium need to improve Need to improve Much need to improve Don't know Not replied n.a.

At the end of the question, respondents had the possibility to mention other factors and to

rate them using the same five-point scale.

Several factors were listed and rated as “much need to improve”:

- disaster exercises;

- direct contacts between the administrative and political levels;

- communication of uncertainties;

- transparency;

- knowing to wait before to speak;

- Information technologies (ITs);


Management

9


- knowledge of lobby groups;

- dignity of participants;

- motivation of participants.

Other factors were listed and marked as “need to improve”. These include:

- a corporate Communications Team to manage strategy and process.

- confession of "ignorance".

- inclusion of independent organizations;

- promote the Citizens participation throughout the Complains Office/Department.

One factor was indicated and marked as “medium need to improve”:

- SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation).

Finally, two factors were indicated by the survey participants but not rated:

- the ability to generate certainties in a climate of clear uncertainty for the population;

- increased involvement of professionals, increased staff to take over administration from core

health professionals to enable working with information.

Weaknesses and Strengths

Global results underline a general need for improvements in all the factors proposed in

question 7, apart from “use of external communication experts”.

Despite this general trend, response rate allows to distinguish between factors that need to be

prioritized and require a particular attention and consideration (weaknesses) and others that

do not need to be urgently addressed and can therefore be treated less in-depth by the Health

C training course and the relative materials (strengths).

The most important weakness highlighted by respondents is the communication competence

of health authority staff and health experts (70,3%). This result confirms that the Health C

project is a timely initiative based on a real need: the necessity to set up a training course in

order to improve and create adequate skills and competences in health crisis communication.

Beside this, the sense of responsibility of the media to provide adequate information is an

element that, according to the opinion of 69,2% of respondents, need or much need to be

improved. This demonstrates the urgency to strengthen the relation and cooperation between

actors involved in health crisis communication and the media so to avoid mistrust.

The establishment of a regular cooperation between all the stakeholders involved in the crisis

communication process (65,7%) was also recognized as a priority as well as the establishment

of standardized communication procedures such as guidelines within an organization (63,1%).

Looking into strengths, the one that most of respondents highlighted is the use of external

communication experts (35,1%). This is also the unique factor clearly recognized as a strength

rather than a weakness. This is followed by the involvement of voluntary organizations in the

communication process (26,9%) and the availability of designated spokespersons (18,3%).


Management

10


In general, it is possible to notice that weaknesses are more concentrated under structural

factors related to the “standards & processes” category, while relatively less present for

certain aspects related to “ways of communication” (i.e. use of external communication

experts and availability of designated spokespersons) and the involvement of stakeholders

such as voluntary and local organizations.

Fig. 7 – Weaknesses (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “need to improve” and “much need to improve”)

70,3%

69,2%

65,7%

63,1%

62,6%

60,8%

60,5%

58,7%

58,0%

56,4%

54,9%

53,6%

53,2%

49,8%

46,8%

45,0%

31,8%

27,2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



















Standards & Processes Ways of communication Involved stakeholders & target groups Media


Management

11


Fig. 8 – Strengths (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “little need to improve” and “no need to improve”)

35,1%

26,9%

18,3%

16,3%

16,0%

15,3%

12,1%

11,4%

11,1%

9,8%

9,5%

8,8%

8,6%

8,4%

7,9%

7,7%

5,3%

5,4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




















Overview of replies (Threats and Opportunities)

Question 8 listed ten factors considered as potential threats to effective crisis communication,

asking the respondents to indicate their importance on a five-point scale. The chart below

provides an overview of responses received. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in

Annex II.


Management

12


Fig. 9 – Question 8: Below you find a list of potential threats to effective crisis communication. How strongly, do

you think, do these factors affect crisis communication?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Economic crisis situation in Europe

Increasing importance of social media

in the society

Social, cultural and linguistic diversity

in Europe

Insufficient collaboration at European

level

Different legal backgrounds

Different administrative backgrounds

Different knowledge backgrounds

Neglect of health crisis situation due to

different political priorities

Unforeseen reactions on the part of the

public/media/other stakeholders

Increasing mobility of individuals across

borders

Not important at all Little importance Medium importance Important Very important Don't know Not replied n.a.

The question ends with the possibility for the respondents to indicate other factors

constituting possible threats to crisis communication and to rate them using the same five-

point scale.

Participants indicated the following threats as “very important”:

- lack of staff in the press offices;

- lobbying;

- self-proclaimed experts;

- too big impact of some medical lobbies, creating policy of hermetic communication;

- personal fears;

- poor cultural share of information;

- to cure "ignorance" as a serious disease;

- truth telling;

- try to hide ignorance;

- no communication of uncertainties;

- general doubting any kind of expert;

- unwillingness of public employees to work overtime;

- dependence from technologies;

- organisational change and shifting priorities being made in isolation without consulting and

involved partners;

- consensus about very important things in health care system;

- neglecting all the necessary criteria for effective communication in times of peace;

- lack of competence in communication techniques by health professionals;


Management

13


One threat was rated as “important”:

- - manipulation of media to reach business purposes.

Other threats that have been indicated but not rated:

- insufficient agility and knowledge in communication;

- economic goals of companies or government.

The survey also explored potential opportunities for effective crisis communication, according

to the view of the respondents. Question 9 listed six factors and asked participants to indicate

their importance in a five-point scale. A general overview of responses is provided in the chart

below. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.

Fig. 10 – Question 9: Here is a list of important societal developments that can provide opportunities for effective crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis

communication?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Economic crisis as an opportunity

to do things differently

Increasing role of social media in

our society

Learning from each other's

experiences in the EU

Transnational coordination

Placing crisis communication

higher on the political agenda

Increasing mobility of experts

across borders

Less important Little importance Medium importance Important Very important Don't know Not replied n.a.

At the end of the question, the respondents had again the possibility to indicate other factors

representing in their opinion an opportunity for effective crisis communication.

The following opportunities were listed by respondents and marked as “very important”:

- higher demand for risk minimization;

- transnational coordination already exists through the civil protection mechanism;

- the real and substantial attention from the institutions of the criteria and the complex process

of effective communication. Improving planning and reporting skills;

- transnational communication;

- establishment of jointly supported communication;

- engage local and social structures.


Management

14


One opportunity (internet) was also added and marked as “important”.

Other opportunities that have been listed but not rated:

- task forces for rapid analysis of new media on the coordination authorities;

- increased mobility can be dealt with virtually.

Threats and Opportunities

Almost all ten potential threats listed in the survey were considered by more than half of the

respondents as “important” or “very important” and therefore having the potential to

negatively affect effective crisis communication.

According to responses, the most important threat to crisis communication is represented by

the neglect of a health crisis situation due to different political priorities (70,3%). Besides this,

respondents highlighted social and cultural factors such as the increasing importance of social

media in the society (69,1%), indicating a possible diffidence towards social media and their

use, and different knowledge backgrounds (65,4%).

The economic factor (economic crisis situation in Europe), although it has been recognised as a

potential threat by 48,3% of respondents, comes only at the penultimate place, being

considered less important in comparison to political, social and cultural factors. Also, among

other factors cited by respondents, economic factors (lack of staff in the press office; economic

goals of companies or government) are less present than others.

Regarding opportunities, all six societal developments listed in question 9 were considered by

more than half of the respondents as opportunities for a more effective crisis communication.

However, the possibility to learn from each other's experiences in the EU (78,9%) was

particularly highlighted by participants. This recognition is particularly important since the

Health C project has among its objectives the fostering of collaboration and sharing of best

practices in health crisis communication and therefore has the potential to seize this

opportunity and use it to overcome weaknesses identified and mitigate threats such as the

insufficient collaboration at European level (highlighted by 51,7% of respondents).

Other opportunities identified include the placing of crisis communication higher on the

political agenda, which comes at second place (66,4%), followed by the transnational

coordination (65,4%).

The economic factor (economic crisis as an opportunity to do things differently), received the

lowest, although considerable, score of 55,9%. Similarly to threats, we can also notice the

absence of economic factors in the other items suggested by the respondents, demonstrating

the prevalence, in the opinions of participants of political, social and cultural factors as major

opportunities for effective crisis communication.


Management

15


Fig. 11 – Threats (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important”)

70,3%

69,1%

65,4%

65,2%

55,2%

53,6%

52,9%

51,7%

48,3%

46,4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Neglect of health crisis situation due to different political priorities

Increasing importance of social media in the society


Unforeseen reactions on the part of the public/media/other

stakeholders



Social, cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe

Insufficient collaboration at European level


Increasing mobility of individuals across borders

Economic Political Social & Cultural

Fig. 12 – Opportunities (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important”)

78,9%

66,4%

65,4%

64,9%

56,8%

55,9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Learning from each other's experiences in the EU

Placing crisis communication higher on the political agenda


Increasing role of social media in our society

Increasing mobility of experts across borders

Economic crisis as an opportunity to do things differently



Management

16


3.3. SWOT Matrix

The SWOT Matrix below provides a summary, indicating the top three strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats.

Fig. 13 – SWOT Matrix – Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Top 3 - Strengths Top 3- Weaknesses

Use of external

communication experts

Communication

competence of health

authority staff and health

experts

Involvement of voluntary

organizations in the

communication process

Sense of responsibility of

the media to provide

adequate information

Availability of designated

spokespersons

Regular cooperation

between all stakeholders

involved in the crisis


Top 3 - Opportunities Top 3 - Threats



Neglect of health crisis

situation due to different

political priorities

Placing crisis

communication higher on

the political agenda

Increasing importance of

social media in the society


Different knowledge

backgrounds


Management

17


4 - SWOT analysis by country

This section analyses the replies received from participants working in the countries part of the

Health C consortium. These national maps will help the partners to adapt the training course

to their national contexts so that it can give response to the weaknesses identified, take into

account the opportunities detected, foster the strengths and look for solutions to avoid

possible threats to an effective health crisis communication in their specific countries.

4.1. Denmark

This section presents a SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

based on the responses of the participants to the Health C survey working in Denmark. The

analysis is based on 41 replies out of the 431 total received.

Respondents’ profile


The majority of respondents work in hospitals, medical care centers and medical practices

(85,4%), the rest working for governmental and health authorities (9,8%) and research and

education organizations (4,9%).

Fig. 14 - Type of organization. (Danish Overview)

9,8%

85,4%

4,9%

Governmental and healthauthorities



Working area

Respondents mostly work in the management area (51,2%). Other areas include medical and

health care (26,8%), administration (9,8%), research (7,3%) and training (2,4%). Participants

were also asked to provide information on the number of years they spent working on the

professional area stated in question 2. Responses show that the average years worked in the

professional area is 17,09 years.


Management

18


Fig.15 – Working area. (Danish Overview)

26,8%

7,3%

51,2%

9,8%

2,4%

2,4%

Medical/health care

Research

Management

Administration

Training

Not replied

Operational level

Findings from this question show that more than half of the participants exercising their

profession in Denmark carry out the work mainly at regional level (63,4%), while the remaining

work at local (26,8%) and national level (7,3%).

Fig. 16 – Operational level. (Danish Overview)

26,8%

63,4%

7,3%2,4%



National (country)

Not replied


Management

19


SWOT Analysis


Question 7 asked the target groups about strengths and weaknesses related to crisis


overview of the responses for Denmark. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in

Annex II.

Fig. 17 – Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication? (Danish Overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



















No need to improve Little need to improve Medium need to improve Need to improve

Much need to improve Don't know Not replied n.a.

It must be noticed that 21,7% of participants on average selected the reply “don’t know”. A

possible explanation might be that participants lacked of information or personal experiences

related with these factors and therefore were not able to provide their opinion.

The 68,3% of replies was not available for the factor “maintenance of trust in health

authorities”, which was therefore removed from the further analysis of weaknesses and

strengths.


Management

20



If compared with the results of the global SWOT analysis, findings highlighted a lower need in

Denmark to improve the factors presented in question 7.

According to responses, the communication competence of health authority staff and health

experts (43,9%) is the factor that requires the major improvements. This is followed by one

factor under the “media” category, namely the sense of responsibility of the media to provide

adequate information (41,5%) and in the third position by the necessity to have consistent and

reliable information in all communication channels (39,1%). It can also be noticed that the first

two weaknesses identified in Denmark coincide with those highlighted by the global SWOT

analysis.

Several factors were clearly identified as strengths such as the involvement of voluntary

organizations in the communication process (36,6%), followed by the involvement of local

organizations in the information exchange process (31,8%) and the use of external

communication experts (29,3%).

Fig. 18 – Weaknesses. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “need to improve” and “much need to improve” - Danish Overview)

43,9%

41,5%

39,1%

36,6%

36,6%

34,1%

31,7%

31,7%

31,7%

26,9%

26,8%

24,4%

21,9%

17,0%

14,6%

12,2%

12,2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Establishment of a standardized communication procedure (guidelines) within an

organization











Management

21


Fig. 19 –Strengths. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “little need to improve” and “no need to improve” - Danish Overview)

36,6%

31,8%

29,3%

26,9%

24,4%

21,9%

21,9%

19,5%

17,1%

17,0%

14,7%

14,6%

14,6%

12,4%

12,2%

9,8%

9,7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
















Establishment of a standardized communication procedure (guidelines) within an

organization




The table below provide an overview of replies to question 8, in which respondents were

asked about potential threats to crisis communication. An in-depth summary of data is also

provided in Annex II.


Management

22



you think, do these factors affect crisis communication? (Danish Overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Unforeseen reactions on the part of the public/media/other stakeholders



Participants were also asked about societal developments having the potential to contribute to

a more effective crisis communication. The table below provides an overview of replies to

question 9 for Denmark. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.

Fig. 21 – Question 9: Here is a list of important societal developments that can provide opportunities for effective

crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis communication? (Danish Overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Management

23



Respondents found in the neglect of a health crisis situation due to different political priorities

the top threat to effective crisis communication (63,4%), in accordance with the results from

the global SWOT analysis. Besides this political factor, the other two most important identified

threats are of social and cultural nature, with the existence of different knowledge

backgrounds coming at second place (58,6%) and the third place occupied by the unforeseen

reactions on the part of the public/media/other stakeholders (56,1%).

The economic crisis situation in Europe comes at the last place with only 26,9% of the

respondents considering it as an important or very important threat to effective crisis

communication. This coincides with the global results, where the same factor is in the

penultimate position in the list of potential threats, although with an higher score of 48,3%.

Regarding the opportunities identified, all six factors were considered by more than half of the

respondents as important or very important and therefore having the potential to contribute

to a more effective crisis communication.

70,8% of respondents stated that learning from each other’s experiences in the EU is an

important or very important opportunity, surpassing quite considerably the other factors.

Interestingly, the economic crisis as an opportunity to do things differently occupies the

second position (58,6%), obtaining the same score as the placing of crisis communication

higher in the political agenda (58,6%) and followed by transnational coordination (56,1%).

Fig. 22 – Threats. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” - Danish Overview)

63,4%

58,6%

56,1%

53,6%

48,8%

43,9%

39,0%

36,6%

31,7%

26,9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Neglect of health crisis situation due to different political

priorities



stakeholders










Management

24


Fig. 23 – Opportunities. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” -

Danish Overview)

70,8%

58,6%

58,6%

56,1%

53,7%

48,8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Management

25


SWOT Matrix


opportunities and threats for Denmark.

Fig. 24 – SWOT Matrix – Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (Danish Overview)


Involvement of

voluntary organizations

in the communication

process

Communication



experts

Involvement of local


information exchange

process




Use of external


Consistent and reliable

information in all

communication channels


Learning from each

other's experiences in

the EU




Economic crisis as an

opportunity to do things

differently

Placing crisis

communication higher

on the political agenda

Different knowledge

backgrounds

Transnational

coordination

Unforeseen reactions on

the part of the

public/media/other

stakeholders


Management

26


4.2. Germany


based on the responses of the participants to Health C survey working in Germany. The

analysis is based on 83 replies out of the 431 total received.



According to the survey results, the majority of the German participants work for

governmental and health authorities (62,7%). The rest of respondents exercise their profession

in hospitals, medical care centers, medical practices (12%), insurance companies (6%),

research and education organizations (3,6%), health professionals or medical associations

(2,4%) and voluntary associations (1,2%). 9,6% indicated other types of organizations. These

encompass: doctors’ associations; foundations; consumers’ and patients’ organizations and

health offices.

Fig. 25 – Type of organization. (German overview)

62,7%12,0%

2,4%

6,0%

3,6%

1,2%

9,6%2,4%




Insurance companies




Not replied

Working area

The majority of respondents work in the areas of communication (Press Departments/Public

Relations) (32,5%), management (20,5%), medical/health care (15,7%), administration (15,7%),

research (4,8%) and training (1,2%). Other areas mentioned by respondents include healthcare

management; emergency and disaster medicine; health education; policy and consulting.

Respondents were also asked to provide additional information on the number of years they

spent working in the professional area stated in question 2. Responses for Germany show that

the average years worked in the professional area is 11,6 years.


Management

27


Fig. 26 – Working area. (German overview)

32,5%

15,7%

4,8%

20,5%

15,7%

1,2%

7,2%2,4%

Communication (PressDepartment/Public Relations)

Medical/health care

Research

Management

Administration

Training


Not replied

Operational level

Participants working in Germany carry out their work mainly at national level (37,3%), followed

by the regional level (34,9%) the local (25,3%) and European level (1,2%).

Fig. 27 – Operational level. (German overview)

25,3%

34,9%

37,3%

1,2%

1,2%



National (country)

Europe

Not replied


Management

28


SWOT Analysis




overview of the responses for Germany. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in

Annex II.

Fig. 28 – Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication? (German overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




















Much need to improve Don't know Not replied

Respondents also mentioned other factors, rating them as “need to improve” or “much need

to improve”, and that can therefore be considered as weaknesses.

Factors identified and rated as “much need to improve” were: disaster exercise; transparency;

knowledge of lobby groups.

Other factors were listed and marked as “need to improve”. These include: confession of

"ignorance"; inclusion of independent organizations.


Management

29



The chart below shows that there is a general need to improve almost all factors presented in

question 7. The top weakness identified by respondents working in Germany is the sense of

responsibility of the media to provide adequate information (68,7%). This is followed by the

regular cooperation between all stakeholders involved in the crisis communication process

(63,9%) and at the third position by the need for consistent and reliable information in all

communication channels (59%). These three weaknesses would appear to be strongly

correlated since the need to improve the sense of responsibility of the media might be the

result of an insufficient cooperation between media and target groups, either in the news

production process or in the delivery of consistent messages to the population.

The need to improve the communication competence of health authority staff and health

experts comes in the fifth place, although being recognised as a weakness by more than half of

the respondents (57,9%). This result is slightly different if compared to the global analysis,

where this factor corresponds to the top weakness (70,5%).

Finally, about half (47%) of the respondents answered that the use of external communication

experts does not need to be improved, constituting clearly a strength in the German crisis

communication process or an element which the respondents believe do not need to be

further improved in order to reach an effective crisis communication.

Other strengths include factors belonging to the “involved stakeholders & target groups”

category, namely the involvement of voluntary organizations in the communication process

(37,3%) and the involvement of local organizations in the information exchange process

(28,9%).


Management

30


Fig. 29 – Weaknesses. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “need to improve” and “much need to improve” - German overview)

68,7%

63,9%

59,0%

57,9%

57,9%

56,6%

53,7%

51,8%

50,6%

50,6%

48,1%

46,9%

43,3%

42,2%

38,5%

27,7%

18,1%

16,8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















Management

31


Fig. 30 – Strengths. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “little need to improve” and “no need to improve” - German overview)

47,0%

37,3%

28,9%

27,7%

22,9%

21,7%

20,4%

19,3%

19,3%

19,3%

18,1%

16,9%

16,9%

14,4%

13,2%

10,8%

10,8%

8,4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















Question 8 presented ten factors considered as potential threats to effective crisis

communication, asking the respondents to indicate their importance on a five-point scale. The

chart below provides an overview of responses received. An in-depth summary of data is also



Management

32


Fig. 31 – Question 8: Below you find a list of potential threats to effective crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these factors affect crisis communication? (German overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%












Respondents also mentioned other factors, rating them as “important” or “very important”,

and that can therefore be considered as a potential threat according to the respondents’ view.

Participants indicated the following threats as “very important”: lack of staff in the press

offices, lobbying and self-proclaimed experts, personal fears; try to hide ignorance; no

communication of uncertainties; general doubting of any kind of expert.

The table below provides an overview of replies to question 9, in which respondents were

asked about societal developments having the potential to contribute to a more effective crisis

communication. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.


Management

33


Fig. 32 – Question 9: Here is a list of important societal developments that can provide opportunities for effective crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis

communication? (German overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








At the end of the question, it was given again the possibility to mention other opportunities

not present among the proposed items and to rate them using the same five-point scale. The

following opportunities were considered as “important” or “very important”: higher demand

for risk minimization, transnational communication, and establishment of jointly supported

communication. Another opportunity was indicated but not rated: task forces for rapid

analysis of new media on the coordination authorities.


Respondents highlighted the existence of different knowledge backgrounds (78,3%) as the

main threat among the ones proposed in question 8. The increasing importance of social

media in the society (77,1%) is also cited by the large majority. The fact that social media are

perceived as a threat might be explained by the absence of specific training courses on the use

of social media2 in health crisis communication. Thus, the target groups would be not

sufficiently familiar or/and would not know how to properly use these new communication

channels.

Finally, respondents stated that the unforeseen reactions on the part of the

public/media/other stakeholders is the third major threat to effective crisis communication

(69,8%).

As illustrated in the chart below, the major opportunity in the opinion of respondents is the

increasing role of social media in the society (68,7%). This result is particularly interesting if

compared with the one obtained in question 8 (threats), where 77,1% of respondents said the

increasing importance of social media in the society represents an important or very important

2 See “Background report”, Health C project, 6 June 2013, pp. 31-36.


Management

34


threat. Although for respondents social media represent more a threat than an opportunity,

these results highlighted at the same time a sense of confidence and diffidence in social media.

The second most important opportunity recognized by respondents is learning from each

other’s experiences in the EU (65,1%) while at the third place comes the placing crisis

communication higher on the political agenda (60,3%).

Fig. 33 – Threats. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” - German overview)

78,3%

77,1%

69,8%

60,3%

57,8%

55,4%

43,4%

43,3%

37,3%

31,3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%












Fig. 34 –Opportunities. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” - German overview)

68,7%

65,1%

60,3%

53,0%

45,8%

26,5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Management

35


SWOT Matrix


opportunities and threats for Germany.

Fig. 35 – SWOT Matrix – Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. (German overview)


Use of external








Regular cooperation




Involvement of local


information exchange

process


information in all



Increasing role of social

media in our society

Different knowledge

backgrounds

Learning from each

other's experiences in the

EU



Placing crisis



Unforeseen reactions on

the part of the

public/media/other

stakeholders


Management

36


4.3. Italy


based on the responses of the participants to Health C survey working in Italy. The analysis is

based on 94 replies out of the 431 total received.



The majority of the respondents work for governmental and health authorities (54,3%). The

remaining work for hospitals, medical care centers, medical practices (28,7%), health

professional or medical associations (4,3%), voluntary association (2,1%) and research and

education organizations (1,1%). 7,4% of participants indicated local health departments under

other, please specify.

Fig. 36 – Type of organization. (Italian overview)

54,3%

28,7%

4,3%

1,1%

2,1%

7,4% 2,1%







Not replied

Working area

Most of respondents work in the medical/health care area (63,8%). The remaining work in the

areas of communication (Press Department/Public Relations) (11,%), management (11,7%),

administration (4,3%), training (2,1%) and research (1,1%). Other areas indicated by 7,4 % of

participants are: quality and safety and risk management.


mentioned in question 2. Responses show that the average years worked in the professional

area is 21,7 years.


Management

37


Fig.37 – Working area. (Italian overview)

11,7%

63,8%

1,1%

11,7%

4,3%

2,1%

4,3% 1,1%


Medical/health care

Research

Management

Administration

Training


Not replied

Operational level

The large majority of respondents work at local level (79,8%), followed at the second place by

the regional level (11,7%),. A minority of respondents work at national level (5,3%) and

worldwide level (1,1%).

Fig. 38 – Operational level. (Italian overview)

79,8%

11,7%

5,3%2,1%

1,1%



National (country)

Worldwide

Not replied


Management

38


SWOT Analysis




overview of the responses for Italy. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.

Fig. 39 – Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these

factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication? (Italian overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Regular cooperation betw een all stakeholders involved in the crisis communication process



Establishment of a standardized communication procedure (guidelines) w ithin an organization




Understanding the new s production process




Identif ication and use of suitable media channels





Know ledge of the target groups and how they get their information

No need to improve Little need to improve Medium need to improve Need to improve Much need to improve Don't know Not replied

Respondents also mentioned other factors that can be considered as weaknesses, since they

were rated in the five-point scale as “need to improve” or “much need to improve”. These

factors are: direct contacts between the administrative and political levels, communication of

uncertainties, dignity and motivation of participants.

Finally, one additional factor was mentioned but not rated: the ability to generate certainties

in a climate of clear uncertainty for the population.

It can also be observed that 17% of respondents replied “don’t know” when asked about the

factor “consistent and reliable information in all communication channels”. A possible

interpretation for this result is that respondents might not be aware of the quality of the

information available in all communication channels or they are not familiar with them all.


Management

39



Findings demonstrate that almost all the factors presented in question 7 need to be improved.

However, the top weakness is constituted by the maintenance of trust in health authorities

(77,6%). In coherence with this result, the second aspect cited by respondents is the

communication competence of health authority staff and health experts (76,6%). Both

weaknesses would seem to be linked since the lack of trust in health authorities might be the

consequence of an insufficient communication competence of the authorities itself. This top

weakness might be also explained by the involvement of many different levels in the

management of an emergency situation3, with a multiplicity of actors responsible for crisis

communication, a possibility which is confirmed by the third weakness identified by the survey

respondents: the regular cooperation between all stakeholders involved in the crisis

communication process (73,4%). The factor disclosure of uncertainties also received the same

score with 73,4% of replies.

Two factors were particularly considered as elements not requiring a particular need for

improvement in Italy: the use of external communication experts (40,4%) and the need for

consistent and reliable information in all communication channels (37,3%). Other two items

which gathered around one-fifth of responses were the availability of designated

spokespersons (21,3%) and the involvement of voluntary organizations in the communication

process (20,3%), although these factors were considered more a weakness than a strength by

respondents.

3 See “Background report”, Health C project, 6 June 2013, pp. 37-46.


Management

40


Fig. 40 – Weaknesses. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “need to improve” and “much need to improve” - Italian overview)

77,6%

76,6%

73,4%

73,4%

71,3%

68,1%

64,9%

64,9%

63,9%

62,8%

62,8%

61,7%

61,7%

60,6%

50,0%

39,3%

25,5%

20,2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















Management

41


Fig. 41 –Strengths. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “little need to improve” and “no need to improve” - Italian overview)

40,4%

37,3%

21,3%

20,3%

9,6%

7,5%

7,5%

6,4%

5,4%

5,3%

5,3%

5,3%

4,3%

4,3%

4,3%

3,2%

2,1%

1,1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















Question 8 lists ten factors considered as potential threats to effective crisis communication


provides an overview of responses received for Italy. An in-depth summary of data is also



Management

42



you think, do these factors affect crisis communication? (Italian overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%











Not important at all Little importance Medium importance Important Very important Don't know Not replied

Respondents also indicated other threats, rating them as “very important”: to cure

"ignorance" as a serious disease, the unwillingness of public employees to work overtime, the

neglecting of all the necessary criteria for effective communication in times of peace; lack of

competence in communication techniques by health professionals. One threat was mentioned

and rated as “important”: manipulation of media to reach business purposes.


to the view of the respondents. Question 9 listed six factors asking the respondent to indicate

their importance in a five-point scale. A general overview of answers for Italy is provided in the

chart below. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.


Management

43



crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis

communication? (Italian overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








Another opportunity was identified as “very important”: the real and substantial attention

from the institutions of the criteria and the complex process of effective communication.


In general, it can be noticed that all proposed threats were considered as having the potential

to strongly or very strongly affect crisis communication, the only exception being represented

by the increasing mobility of individuals across boarders, which received less than half of

responses (44,7%).

The neglect of a health crisis due to different political priorities largely represents, according to

the view of the respondents, the major threat for an effective crisis communication (80,8%),

followed by the unforeseen reactions on the part of the public (73,4%) and the increasing

importance of social media in the society (66%). These results are very close to the ones

presented in the global SWOT analysis.

Also, coherently with the global results, the major opportunity highlighted by the large

majority of the respondents working in Italy is learning from each other’s experiences in the

EU (85,1%).

The increasing role of social media in the society comes at the second place (70,2%),

demonstrating a certain confidence in the possibilities opened by the use of these new

communication channels, followed by transnational coordination (67%). The increasing

mobility of experts across borders, although important or very important for the 51,1% of


Management

44


respondents, does not fall into the factors that most are believed to have the potential to

positively affect crisis communication, in line with the result also emerged for threats.

Fig. 44 – Threats. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” -Italian overview)

80,8%

73,4%

66,0%

59,6%

58,5%

56,4%

56,4%

52,2%

52,1%

44,7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



stakeholders










Fig. 45 – Opportunities. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” - Italian overview)

85,1%

70,2%

67,0%

64,9%

61,7%

51,1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Management

45


SWOT Matrix


opportunities and threats for Italy.

Fig. 46 – SWOT Matrix – Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. (Italian overview)


Use of external


Maintenance of trust in

health authorities


information in all


Communication competence

of health authority staff and

health experts


spokespersons

Regular cooperation






Learning from each


the EU




Increasing role of social

media in our society

Unforeseen reactions on the

part of the

public/media/other

stakeholders

Transnational

coordination




Management

46


4.4. Portugal


based on the responses of the participants to Health C survey working in Portugal. The analysis

is based on 42 replies out of the 431 total received.



Most of participant for Portugal work for research and education organization (31%) and for

hospitals, medical health care centers and medical practices (28,6%). Other respondents

declared to work for governmental and health authorities (19%), health professional or

medical associations (4,8%) and voluntary associations (2,4%). Some other areas not present

among the options available were identified. These include: primary health care centers;

hospital associations; fire department and civil protection.

Fig. 47 – Type of organization. (Portuguese overview)

19,0%

28,6%

4,8%

31,0%

2,4%

9,5%

4,8%





Voluntary associations


Not replied

Working area

As illustrated in the chart below, the majority of replies indicated as area of work the

medical/health care one (28,6%). This is followed by the areas of training (19%)

communication (Press Department/Public Relations) (11,9%), and research, management and

administration all receiving 7,1% of replies. Finally, other working areas were also indicated.

These include the social work; risk management; quality and safety; emergency.


selected in question 2. Responses show that the average years worked in the professional area

is 14,5 years.


Management

47


Fig. 48 – Working area. (Portuguese overview)

11,9%

28,6%

7,1%7,1%

7,1%

19,0%

14,3%

4,8%


Medical/health care

Research

Management

Administration

Training


Not replied

Operational level

More than half of the respondents work at local level (52,4%). The rest work at national

(26,2%), regional (14,3%), worldwide (4,8%) and European level (2,4%) .

Fig. 49 – Operational level. (Portuguese overview)

52,4%

14,3%

26,2%

2,4%4,8%



National (country)

Europe

Worldwide


Management

48


SWOT Analysis




overview of the responses for Portugal. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex

II.

Fig. 50 – Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication? (Portuguese overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



















No need to improve Little need to improve Medium need to improve Need to improve Much need to improve Don't know Not replied

Other two items were mentioned by respondents in the free space “other, please specify”.

These were Information Technologies (ITs) which was rated “much need to improve” and

promote the citizens participation throughout the Complains Office/Department qualified as

“need to improve”.


Responses for Portugal highlight a particularly urgent need for improvements in all the 18

factors listed in question 7.

The large majority of respondents (83,3%) cited the sense of responsibility of the media to

provide adequate information as the factor that most needs to be improved.


Management

49


Structural aspects also need to be improved in Portugal. Other main weaknesses highlighted

are factors under the category “standards & processes”, namely the communication

competence of health authority staff and health experts (81%), and the monitoring and

evaluation of communication activities, together to the need for a common understanding and

definition of health crisis (73,8%).

Although all items were considered by respondents more as weaknesses than strengths, it is

nevertheless useful to draw attention on the aspects that received the highest score such as

the use of external communication experts (31%), the availability of designated spokespersons

(14,3%) and disclosure of uncertainties (11,9%). These factors do not necessarily constitute a

strength but something that is less urgent to improve and therefore can be treated less in-

depth by the Health C training course.

It is also important to notice that three factors (i.e. regular cooperation between all

stakeholders involved in the crisis communication process, sense of responsibility of the media

to provide adequate information and monitoring and evaluation of communication activities)

obtained no responses under the points “no need to improve” or “little need to improve”.

Fig. 51 – Weaknesses. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “need to improve” and “much need to improve” - Portuguese overview)

83,3%

81,0%

73,8%

73,8%

73,8%

71,4%

69,0%

69,0%

66,7%

64,3%

64,3%

64,3%

59,5%

57,1%

54,8%

52,4%

47,6%

35,7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















Management

50


Fig. 52 – Strengths. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “little need to improve” and “no need to

improve” - Portuguese overview)

31,0%

14,3%

11,9%

11,9%

9,5%

7,1%

7,1%

4,8%

4,8%

4,8%

4,8%

4,8%

4,8%

2,4%

2,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%























provides a summary of responses received for Portugal. An in-depth summary of data is also



Management

51



you think, do these factors affect crisis communication? (Portuguese overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%












The potential threat of poor cultural share of information was also mentioned and rated as

“very important”.



their importance in a five-point scale. A general overview of responses for Portugal is provided

in the chart below. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.


Management

52



crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis

communication? (Portuguese overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








Another opportunity was mentioned and rated as “very important”: the engagement of local

and social structures.


As shown in the chart below, the neglect of a health crisis situation due to different political

priorities is considered the top threat by the large majority (83,3%) of respondents. Another

relevant threats is represented by the existence of different knowledge backgrounds (71,4%),

followed by the economic crisis situation in the EU (66,7%). This threat is much more

important in Portugal, if compared with the results obtained for other countries like Denmark

(26,9%) and Germany (31,3%) and also if compared with the global results where this factor

occupies the penultimate position (48,3%).

Regarding the opportunities, the large majority of respondents (85,7%) consider the possibility

to learn from each other’s in the EU the most important factor having the potential to

positively affect crisis communication. In line with this first result, transnational coordination

(76,2%) is the second factor highlighted by respondents, followed by placing of crisis

communication higher on the political agenda (73,8%) which obtained the same score as the

economic crisis as an opportunity to do things differently (73,8%).


Management

53


Fig.55 – Threats. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” - Portuguese overview)

83,3%

71,4%

66,7%

64,3%

64,3%

61,9%

59,5%

59,5%

57,1%

57,1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%












Fig. 56 – Opportunities. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” -

Portuguese overview)

85,7%

76,2%

73,8%

73,8%

66,7%

57,1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Management

54


SWOT Matrix


opportunities and threats for Portugal.

Fig.57 – SWOT Matrix–Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. (Portuguese overview)


Use of external


Sense of responsibility of the

media to provide adequate

information


spokespersons

Communication competence

of health authority staff and

health experts





A common understanding

and definition of health crisis

Regular cooperation











Different knowledge

backgrounds


opportunity to do things

differently

Placing crisis



Economic crisis situation in

Europe


Management

55


4.5. Spain


based on the responses of the participants to Health C survey working in Spain. The analysis is

based on 60 replies out of the 431 total received.



More than half of the respondents work for hospitals, medical care centers and medical

practices. (53,3%). The rest declared to work for governmental and health authorities (30%),

health professional or medical associations (6,7%) and research and education organizations

(5%). 5% indicate a type of organization which was not present among the proposed list. They

indicated: patients’ organizations; health emergency departments.

Fig. 58 – Type of organization. (Spanish overview)

30,0%

53,3%

6,7%

5,0%5,0%






Working area

The majority of respondents indicated to work in the medical/health care (35%) and

management (31,7%) areas. The rest of respondents selected the areas of administration

(6,7%), research(3,3%) and training (3,3%) . Other areas indicated include: health/healthcare

management; nursing care; policy; public health.


selected in question 2. Responses show that the average years worked in the professional area

is 13,2 years.

Fig. 59 – Working area. (Spanish overview)


Management

56


15,0%

35,0%

3,3%

31,7%

6,7%

3,3%3,3%1,7%


Medical/health care

Research

Management

Administration

Training


Not replied

Operational level

Most of respondents indicate to work at regional (43,3%) and local (40%) level, while the rest

declared to work at national (11,7%), European (3,3%) and worldwide level (1,7%).

Fig. 60 – Operational level. (Spanish overview)

40,0%

43,3%

11,7%

3,3%

1,7%



National (country)

Europe

Worldwide


Management

57


SWOT Analysis




overview of the responses for Spain. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.

Fig. 61 – Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication? (Spanish overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




















Much need to improve Don't know Not replied


Similarly to results for Portugal, all 18 factors listed in question 7 were considered by

respondents more as weaknesses than strengths.

The top weakness in Spain is represented by the sense of responsibility of the media to provide

adequate information (85%), highlighting the need for a stronger cooperation between the

target groups and the media. This is followed by two elements under the “standards &

processes” category: monitoring and evaluation of communication activities (80%) and

communication competence of health authority staff and health experts (78,3%).

Although all items were considered by respondents more as weaknesses than strengths, it is

nevertheless very important to draw attention to the factors that received the highest score,

since they indicate the need to be treated less in-depth by the training course. These items are


Management

58


represented by the involvement of voluntary organizations in the communication process

(33,3%), the use of external communication experts (30%), in line with the global results, and

the understanding of the news production process (18,3%).

Fig. 62 – Weaknesses. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “need to improve” and “much need to improve” - Spanish overview)

85,0%

80,0%

78,3%

75,0%

75,0%

71,7%

68,3%

66,7%

66,7%

65,0%

63,3%

61,7%

60,0%

60,0%

56,7%

55,0%

38,3%

35,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%





















Management

59


Fig. 63 – Strengths. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “little need to improve” and “no need to improve” - Spanish overview)

33,3%

30,0%

18,3%

15,0%

8,3%

6,7%

6,7%

6,7%

5,0%

5,0%

5,0%

5,0%

5,0%

5,0%

5,0%

3,3%

1,7%

1,7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%























provides an overview of responses received for Spain. An in-depth summary of data is also



Management

60



you think, do these factors affect crisis communication? (Spanish overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%












The potential threat of dependence from technologies was also mentioned and rated as “very

important”.



their importance in a five-point scale. A general overview of responses for Spain is provided in

the chart below. An in-depth summary of data is also provided in Annex II.


crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis communication? (Spanish overview)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Economic crisis as an opportunity to do

things differently

Increasing role of social media in our

society

Learning from each other's experiences in

the EU


Placing crisis communication higher on


Increasing mobility of experts across

borders


The fact that transnational coordination already exists through the civil protection mechanism

was also cited among the other opportunities by one of the respondents.


Management

61



The major threat identified by respondents is the neglect of health crisis situation due to

different political priorities (81,7%). The increasing importance of social media in the society

comes at the second place with 70% of responses followed by the different administrative

backgrounds (61,7%).

Concerning the opportunities, all those listed in question 9 were considered by a large majority

of respondents as very important or important. The major opportunities identified are

transnational coordination and learning from each other’s experiences in the EU, which both

obtained the same percentage of responses (76,7%). After these, another political factor

(placing crisis communication higher on the political agenda) comes at the second place with

68,3% of replies.

It is interesting to notice that the economic crisis represents more an opportunity to do things

differently rather than a threat, opportunity which can be reinforced by learning from each

other’s experiences in the EU. Finally, findings demonstrate that diffidence towards social

media prevails on the potential opportunity that these new communication channels can

represent.

Fig. 66 – Threats. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” -

Spanish overview)

81,7%

70,0%

61,7%

60,0%

56,7%

53,3%

51,7%

46,7%

46,7%

43,3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%













Management

62


Fig. 67 – Opportunities. (Percentage of replies obtained under the categories “important” and “very important” - Spanish overview)

76,7%

76,7%

68,3%

65,0%

65,0%

60,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%









Management

63


SWOT Matrix


opportunities and threats for Spain.

Fig.68 – SWOT Matrix – Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. (Spanish overview)


Involvement of

voluntary organizations

in the communication

process




Use of external


Monitoring and evaluation

of communication activities

Understanding the

news production

process

Communication



experts


Learning from each


the EU

Transnational

coordination




Placing crisis

communication higher

on the political agenda




opportunity to do

things differently

Increasing mobility of

experts across borders

Different administrative

backgrounds


Management

64


5 - Conclusions

The SWOT analysis carried out in this report underlines the need for improvements in a

number of areas related to health crisis communication and for which competences and skills

should be reinforced or created. These aspects range from more structural aspects (e.g.

communication procedures, guidelines, monitoring and evaluation) to other aspect related to

ways of communication and relations existing between the various stakeholders involved in

the crisis communication process.

In particular, based on the results of the SWOT analysis, it is possible to arrive at the following

conclusions:

1. almost all the 18 factors listed in the survey need to be improved. Improvements

which are more widely recognized relate to the enhancement of the communication

competence of health authorities staff and health experts, the strengthening of the

regular cooperation between the target groups and the other stakeholders (in

particular the media) involved in the crisis communication process and the

identification of strategies that allow health authorities to build and maintain trust;

2. the lowest need for improvements relate to aspects such as the involvement of

voluntary and local organizations in the crisis communication and information

exchange process as well as the use of external communication experts. Such

competences can be considered as sufficiently acquired or not particularly needed in

order to achieve a more effective crisis communication;

3. a crisis not sufficiently prioritized in the political agenda represents the most

important threat to effective crisis communication;

4. the increasing importance and role of social media in the society represents at the

same time an opportunity and a threat, unveiling a simultaneous sense of diffidence

and confidence in these new communication channels;

5. learning from each other’s and exchanging experiences in the EU is recognized as the

most important opportunity to increase the effectiveness of crisis communication;

6. weaknesses and strengths identified in the countries part of the Health C consortium

mostly correspond to the ones identified in the global analysis, although with some

peculiarities. Regarding opportunities and threats, the top ones identified also appear

to be the same as in the global analysis for the majority of countries. This highlights

again the similarities among the European countries in this subject.

Finally, the summary of the global SWOT analysis is reported again here below, representing

the top three strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats:


Management

65


Fig. 69 – Global SWOT Matrix – Top three Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.


Use of external


Communication



experts








spokespersons

Regular cooperation










Placing crisis






Different knowledge

backgrounds


Management

66


6 - Annexes

6.1. Annex I - Health C survey

Questions 1. For which type of organization do you work? [one answer possible] - Governmental and health authorities - Hospitals, medical care centers, medical practices - Health professional or medical associations - Insurance companies - Research & education organizations - Voluntary Associations - Health consulting agencies - Other, please specify ____________________

2. In which area do you work? [one answer possible] - Communication (Press Department/Public Relations) - Medical/health care - Research - Management - Administration - Training - Other, please specify _____________________

3. For how long have you been working in this professional area?

___ Years

4. In which country do you work? [one answer possible] - Belgium - Denmark - Germany - Italy - Portugal - Spain - Other, please specify___________________________

5. At which operational level is your work carried out mainly? [one answer possible] If you have more than one professional area or work on different operational levels, please indicate the level at which you work mainly. - Local (city, town, county) - Regional (federal state, region) - National (country) - Europe - Worldwide

6. In your opinion, what are the crucial factors for effective crisis communication? [5-point scale

from “not important at all” to “very important” and “don’t know”] - A common understanding and definition of health crises - Regular cooperation between all stakeholders involved in the crisis communication process - Involvement of local organizations in the information exchange process - Involvement of health professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses) in the communication process - Establishment of a standardized communication procedure (guidelines) within in organization - Availability of designated spokespersons - Communication competence of health authority staff and health experts


Management

67


- Use of external communication experts - Understanding the news production process - Maintenance of trust in health authorities - Disclosure of uncertainties - Consistent and reliable information in all communication channels - Sense of responsibility of the media to provide adequate information - Identification and use of suitable media channels - Involvement of voluntary organizations in the communication process - Quick provision of information - Monitoring and evaluation of communication activities - Knowledge of the target groups and how they get their information - Others, please specify _______________________________

7. Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication? [5-point scale from “no need to improve” to “much need to improve”, and “don’t know”]

- A common understanding and definition of health crises - Regular cooperation between all stakeholders involved in the crisis communication process - Involvement of local organizations in the information exchange process - Involvement of health professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses) in the communication process - Establishment of a standardized communication procedure (guidelines) within an organization - Availability of designated spokespersons - Communication competence of health authority staff and health experts - Use of external communication experts - Understanding the news production process - Maintenance of trust in health authorities - Disclosure of uncertainties - Consistent information in all communication channels - Sense of responsibility of the media to provide adequate information - Identification and use of suitable media channels - Involvement of voluntary organizations in the communication process - Quick provision of information - Monitoring and evaluation of communication activities - Knowledge of the target groups and how they get their information - Others, please specify _______________________________

8. Below you find a list of potential threats to effective crisis communication. How strongly, do

you think, do these factors affect crisis communication? [5-point scale from “not important at all” to “very important”, and “Don’t know”]

- Economic crisis situation in Europe - Increasing importance of social media in the society - Social, cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe - Insufficient collaboration at European level - Different legal backgrounds - Different administrative backgrounds - Different knowledge backgrounds - Neglect of a health crisis situation due to different political priorities - Unforeseen reactions on the part of the public/media/other stakeholders - Increasing mobility of individuals across borders - Others, please specify _______________________________


Management

68


9. Here is a list of important societal developments that can provide opportunities for effective crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute to a more effective crisis communication? [5-point-scale from “less important” to “very important”]

- Economic crisis as an opportunity to do things differently - Increasing role of social media in our society - Learning from each other’s experiences in the EU - Transnational coordination - Placing crisis communication higher on the political agenda - Increasing mobility of experts across borders - Others, please specify _______________________________

10. One of the most notable developments in present times is the rise of new communication

channels (e.g. social media, online video channels, blogs). How often do you use such channels in your professional life?

- Every day - Several times a week - Once a week - 2 to 3 times per month - Once a month - Less frequent - Never

11. Here are several statements about the potentials and limitations of new communication channels (e.g. social media, online video channels, blogs) in health crisis communication. How strongly do you agree or disagree to these statements? [5-point-scale from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”, and “Don’t know”]

- There is a lack of knowledge on how to use new communication channels in crisis situations - Social media offer better access to specific target groups - Social media allow quick and up-to-date communication - Direct interaction and feedback offered by social media improve crisis communication - Social media can be used effectively to correct wrong statements in the media - Organizations involved in crisis communication often do not have the capacity

(time/manpower) to use social media - With social media we can’t reach our target groups properly - Posts and discussions on social media can get beyond control and lead to misinformation - People in charge of crisis communication should be trained on the adequate use of social media

during health crises - With social media, journalists can be reached efficiently as possible information multipliers in

real-time - One common social media channel provided by the health authorities in charge would be a

useful information channel to the public during crises - In addition to new communication channels, it is also important to maintain the traditional

communicative channels (e.g. via radio) - Social media can be used as a real-time monitoring tool on the concerns and questions of the

public

12. As already mentioned the Health C-project aims to create a tool-kit and training materials that aim to support health authorities and professionals to communicate effectively in health crises. Would you be interested in attending a training course in crisis communication?

- Yes - Probably yes - Maybe - Rather not - No (Filter, if answer is No, questions 14, 15, and 16 will be dismissed) - Don’t know


Management

69


13. Do you have experiences with e-learning tools? - Yes - no (Filter, if yes )

14. How would you rate these experiences? - Very negative - Rather negative - neutral - Rather positive - Very positive

15. What type of learning course would you prefer? Please mark your preferred option. - e-learning based - classroom based - mix of e-learning and classroom based

16. Thinking of an e-learning platform on the Web. How important are the following capabilities or tools for you? [5-point-scale “not important at all” to “very important”]

- Discussion forum - Chat application - Messaging application (e-mail) - RSS-Feed - Videos - Text documents - Images - Link list - Social network application - Wiki (interactive content management system) - Self-test questionnaire

17. If you think of a one-month-training course. How many hours per week would you be willing

to spend with the course? - Less than 1 hour per week - 1 to 2 hours per week - 3 to 4 hours per week - 5 to 6 hours per week - more than 6 hours per week 18. Here are a few statements about learning preferences and learning styles. How strongly do

you agree or disagree to these statements? [5-point-scale from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”]

- I like to work alone - I like to work in groups - I like to search for information - I like to be provided with information - It is important for me to have the chance to get in contact with other participants - I like my work to be evaluated - I want to discuss what I learned with others - I generally accomplish what I set out to do - I can easily understand new ideas and concepts 19. You have nearly completed the questionnaire. Thank you very much! If you have any

suggestions or questions, please leave a comment below. We appreciate your feedback. [free text space]

__________________________________________________________________________


Management

70


20. If you are interested in the results of our study and in getting access to the training materials,

please enter your e-mail-address in this field or send an e-mail to mail to: [email protected]. It will be stored separately from the rest of your answers. [free text space]

__________________________________________________________________________ 21. Before finally implementing the training course, we will implement a pilot test phase. Would

you be willing to participate in this pilot test? - Yes - No

mailto:mail%20to:%[email protected]

mailto:mail%20to:%[email protected]


Management

71


6.2. Annex II – Summary of data

Explanatory remarks: the tables below present a summary of the replies obtained for the

questions of the Health C survey relevant for the SWOT analysis. The tables report the

percentages of responses and, into brackets, the number of replies received for each entry.

Global results

Question 7: Considering these factors again, according to your view and experience, how much

do these factors need to be improved in order to achieve effective crisis communication?

No need

to improve

Little need to improve

Medium need to improve

Need to improve

Much need to improve

Don’t know

Not replied

n.a. Total

A common understanding and definition of health crisis 1,6% (7)

7,2% (31)

27,4% (118)

32,7% (141)

26,0% (112)

4,4% (19)

0,7% (3)

0,0% (0)

100% (431)


0,5% (2)

4,9% (21)

22,7% (98)

37,6% (162)

28,1% (121)

5,6% (24)

0,7% (3)

0,0% (0)


3,2% (14)

12,1% (52)

30,6% (132)

29,7% (128)

15,3% (66)

7,9% (34)

1,2% (5)

0,0% (0)


0,7% (3)

8,8% (38)

25,5% (110)

35,5% (153)

25,3% (109)

3,9% (17)

0,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


1,9% (8)

6,0% (26)

26,0% (112)

32,5% (140)

30,6% (132)

2,6% (11)

0,5% (2)

0,0% (0)

Availability of designated spokespersons 5,8% (25)

12,5% (54)

27,8% (120)

30,6% (132)

16,2% (70)

6% (26)

0,9% (4)

0,0% (0)


0,7% (3)

4,6% (20)

21,3% (92)

40,8% (176)

29,5% (127)

2,3% (10)

0,7% (3)

0,0% (0)

Use of external communication experts 14,2% (61)

20,9% (90)

29,2% (126)

18,6% (80)

8,6% (37)

7,0% (30)

1,6% (7)

0,0% (0)

Understanding the news production process 2,6% (11)

13,7% (59)

28,1% (121)

32,9% (142)

16,9% (73)

5,1% (22)

0,7% (3)

0,0% (0)

Disclosure of uncertainties 3,7% (16)

7,7% (33)

23,9% (103)

27,4% (118)

29% (125)

7,0% (30)

1,4% (6)

0,0% (0)


8,6% (37)

7,4% (32)

23,2% (100)

32,3% (139)

20,9% (90)

6,7% (29)

0,9% (4)

0,0% (0)


1,9% (8)

5,8% (25)

19,0% (82)

29,2% (126)

40,1% (173)

3,2% (14)

0,7% (3)

0,0% (0)

Identification and use of suitable media channels 2,6% (11)

9,5% (41)

29% (125)

32,3% (139)

21,3% (92)

3,7% (16)

1,6% (7)

0,0% (0)


9,3% (40)

17,6% (76)

30,9% (133)

19,5% (84)

12,3% (53)

9,0% (39)

1,4% (6)

0,0% (0)

Quick provision of information 1,6% (7)

9,5% (41)

26,7% (115)

32,5% (140)

25,5% (110)

3,0% (13)

1,2% (5)

0,0% (0)

Monitoring and evaluation of communication activities 1,9% (8)

6,7% (29)

25,8% (111)

35,7% (154)

24,8% (107)

3,7% (16)

1,4% (6)

0,0% (0)

Maintenance of trust in health authorities 1,4% (6)

7,0% (30)

18,8% (81)

32,0% (138)

30,6% (132)

2,6% (11)

1,2% (5)

6,5% (28)


1,9% (8)

7,9% (34)

29,9% (129)

33,6% (145)

21,3% (92)

4,2% (18)

1,2% (5)

0,0% (0)


Management

72


Question 8: Below you find a list of potential threats to effective crisis communication. How

strongly, do you think, do these factors affect crisis communication?

Not

important at all

Little importance

Medium importance

Important Very

important Don't know

Not replied n.a. Total

Economic crisis situation in Europe 6,0% (26)

10,2% (44)

29,0% (125)

28,3% (122)

20,0% (86)

3,5% (15)

0,0% (0)

3,0% (13)

100% (431)


0,7% (3)

7,9% (34)

17,2% (74)

33,6% (145)

35,5% (153)

1,4% (6)

0,7% (3)

3,0% (13)


4,2% (18)

11,1% (48)

27,4% (118)

32,9% (142)

20,0% (86)

1,2% (5)

0,2% (1)

3,0% (13)


2,8% (12)

8,6% (37)

27,6% (119)

29,7% (128)

22,0% (95)

5,8% (25)

0,5% (2)

3,0% (13)

Different legal backgrounds 1,9% (8)

10,2% (44)

26,0% (112)

32,7% (141)

20,9% (90)

4,6% (20)

0,7% (3)

3,0% (13)

Different administrative backgrounds 1,6% (7)

7,4% (32)

26,0% (112)

34,8% (150)

20,4% (88)

5,3% (23)

1,4% (6)

3,0% (13)

Different knowledge backgrounds 1,2% (5)

5,6% (24)

21,8% (94)

40,6% (175)

24,8% (107)

2,6% (11)

0,5% (2)

3,0% (13)


0,7% (3)

5,6% (24)

17,9% (77)

35,0% (151)

35,3% (152)

2,3% (10)

0,2% (1)

3,0% (13)


0,9% (4)

4,6% (20)

21,8% (94)

41,1% (177)

24,1% (104)

3,7% (16)

0,7% (3)

3,0% (13)


4,9% (21)

12,1% (52)

26,5% (114)

26,9% (116)

19,5% (84)

6,5% (28)

0,7% (3)

3,0% (13)

Question 9: Here is a list of important societal developments that can provide opportunities for

effective crisis communication. How strongly, do you think, do these developments contribute

to a more effective crisis communication?

Less

important Little

importance Medium

importance Important

Very important

Don't know Not replied

n.a. Total


3,7% (16)

9,5% (41)

22,5% (97)

32,9% (142)

23,0% (99)

4,6% (20)

0,0% (0)

3,7% (16)

100% (431)


1,2% (5)

6,5% (28)

21,6% (93)

38,7% (167)

26,2% (113)

1,9% (8)

0,2% (1)

3,7% (16)


1,4% (6)

3,5% (15)

11,4% (49)

35,0% (151)

43,9% (189)

1,2% (5)

0,0% (0)

3,7% (16)

Transnational coordination 1,2% (5)

6,3% (27)

19,3% (83)

36,2% (156)

29,2% (126)

3,5% (15)

0,7% (3)

3,7% (16)


0,9% (4)

4,6% (20)

21,3% (92)

37,4% (161)

29,0% (125)

2,3% (10)

0,7% (3)

3,7% (16)


1,4% (6)

8,4% (36)

26,0% (112)

32,9% (142)

23,9% (103)

3,7% (16)

0,0% (0)

3,7% (16)


Management

73


Denmark



No need

to improve



Need to improve


Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


12,2% (5)

24,4% (10)

22,0% (9)

14,6% (6)

24,4% (10)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

100% (41)


0,0% (0)

14,6% (6)

22,0% (9)

26,8% (11)

9,8% (4)

24,4% (10)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


9,8% (4)

22,0% (9)

26,8% (11)

12,2% (5)

2,4% (1)

24,4% (10)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

14,6% (6)

36,6% (15)

22,0% (9)

4,9% (2)

22,0% (9)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


4,9% (2)

4,9% (2)

39,0% (16)

24,4% (10)

7,3% (3)

19,5% (8)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


12,2% (5)

34,1% (14)

14,6% (6)

2,4% (1)

26,8% (11)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


4,9% (2)

9,8% (4)

26,8% (11)

36,6% (15)

7,3% (3)

14,6% (6)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

Use of external communication experts 12,2%

(5) 17,1%

(7) 29,3% (12)

12,2% (5)

0,0% (0)

26,8% (11)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


19,5% (8)

22,0% (9)

26,8% (11)

4,9% (2)

24,4% (10)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


22,0% (9)

14,6% (6)

24,4% (10)

2,4% (1)

31,7% (13)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


2,4% (1)

7,3% (3)

31,7% (13)

29,3% (12)

9,8% (4)

17,1% (7)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


4,9% (2)

19,5% (8)

14,6% (6)

24,4% (10)

17,1% (7)

19,5% (8)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


14,6% (6)

34,1% (14)

14,6% (6)

7,3% (3)

19,5% (8)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


22,0% (9)

14,6% (6)

26,8% (11)

7,3% (3)

4,9% (2)

22,0% (9)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


7,3% (3)

31,7% (13)

19,5% (8)

14,6% (6)

22,0% (9)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


9,8% (4)

31,7% (13)

17,1% (7)

7,3% (3)

24,4% (10)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


4,9% (2)

17,1% (7)

4,9% (2)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

68,3% (28)


2,4% (1)

14,6% (6)

26,8% (11)

26,8% (11)

4,9% (2)

24,4% (10)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


Management

74







Not

important at all

Little importance

Medium importance

Important Very




17,1% (7)

34,1% (14)

22,0% (9)

4,9% (2)

12,2% (5)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

100% (41)


0,0% (0)

14,6% (6)

29,3% (12)

36,6% (15)

12,2% (5)

4,9% (2)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


2,4% (1)

14,6% (6)

24,4% (10)

34,1% (14)

19,5% (8)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


4,9% (2)

19,5% (8)

26,8% (11)

24,4% (10)

14,6% (6)

4,9% (2)

2,4% (1)

2,4% (1)


22,0% (9)

29,3% (12)

24,4% (10)

7,3% (3)

12,2% (5)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


14,6% (6)

41,5% (17)

19,5% (8)

17,1% (7)

4,9% (2)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


19,5% (8)

17,1% (7)

41,5% (17)

17,1% (7)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


0,0% (0)

7,3% (3)

24,4% (10)

46,3% (19)

17,1% (7)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


0,0% (0)

12,2% (5)

24,4% (10)

43,9% (18)

12,2% (5)

4,9% (2)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)


0,0% (0)

14,6% (6)

24,4% (10)

29,3% (12)

14,6% (6)

14,6% (6)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

Less

important Little

importance Medium


Very important

Don't know



7,3% (3)

12,2% (5)

17,1% (7)

36,6% (15)

22,0% (9)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,9% (2)

100% (41)


0,0% (0)

17,1% (7)

24,4% (10)

43,9% (18)

9,8% (4)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,9% (2)


2,4% (1)

4,9% (2)

12,2% (5)

41,5% (17)

29,3% (12)

4,9% (2)

0,0% (0)

4,9% (2)


14,6% (6)

19,5% (8)

34,1% (14)

22,0% (9)

4,9% (2)

0,0% (0)

4,9% (2)


0,0% (0)

12,2% (5)

24,4% (10)

41,5% (17)

17,1% (7)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,9% (2)


0,0% (0)

9,8% (4)

29,3% (12)

29,3% (12)

19,5% (8)

7,3% (3)

0,0% (0)

4,9% (2)


Management

75


Germany



No need

to improve



Need to improve


Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


9,6% (8)

27,7% (23)

34,9% (29)

19,3% (16)

3,6% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

100% (83)


1,2% (1)

7,2% (6)

20,5% (17)

42,2% (35)

21,7% (18)

7,2% (6)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


4,8% (4)

24,1% (20)

36,1% (30)

12,0% (10)

4,8% (4)

16,9% (14)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


1,2% (1)

15,7% (13)

25,3% (21)

37,3% (31)

13,3% (11)

7,2% (6)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


3,6% (3)

9,6% (8)

28,9% (24)

30,1% (25)

26,5% (22)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


10,8% (9)

27,7% (23)

27,7% (23)

14,5% (12)

9,6% (8)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


1,2% (1)

9,6% (8)

31,3% (26)

42,2% (35)

15,7% (13)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


27,7% (23)

18,1% (15)

19,3% (16)

8,4% (7)

4,8% (4)

2,4% (2)

0,0% (0)


20,5% (17)

26,5% (22)

26,5% (22)

12,0% (10)

7,2% (6)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


8,4% (7)

19,3% (16)

26,5% (22)

24,1% (20)

6,0% (5)

2,4% (2)

0,0% (0)


3,6% (3)

14,5% (12)

20,5% (17)

34,9% (29)

24,1% (20)

2,4% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


3,6% (3)

7,2% (6)

16,9% (14)

26,5% (22)

42,2% (35)

3,6% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


18,1% (15)

24,1% (20)

36,1% (30)

12,0% (10)

3,6% (3)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


12,0% (10)

25,3% (21)

30,1% (25)

14,5% (12)

3,6% (3)

13,3% (11)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


16,9% (14)

27,7% (23)

33,7% (28)

18,1% (15)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


14,5% (12)

27,7% (23)

34,9% (29)

12,0% (10)

4,8% (4)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


14,5% (12)

21,7% (18)

38,6% (32)

19,3% (16)

3,6% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


4,8% (4)

14,5% (12)

33,7% (28)

32,5% (27)

10,8% (9)

2,4% (2)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)


Management

76




Not

important at all

Little importance

Medium importance

Important Very




14,5% (12)

38,6% (32)

25,3% (21)

6,0% (5)

6,0% (5)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)

100% (83)


1,2% (1)

8,4% (7)

10,8% (29)

30,1% (25)

47,0% (39)

1,2% (1)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


8,4% (7)

16,9% (14)

27,7% (23)

30,1% (25)

13,3% (11)

2,4% (2)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


4,8% (4)

13,3% (11)

28,9% (24)

31,3% (26)

12,0% (10)

8,4% (7)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


13,3% (11)

20,5% (17)

33,7% (28)

24,1% (20)

3,6% (3)

2,4% (2)

1,2% (1)


7,2% (6)

24,1% (20)

41,0% (34)

19,3% (16)

6,0% (5)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


3,6% (3)

15,7% (13)

45,8% (38)

32,5% (27)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


2,4% (2)

12,0% (10)

25,3% (21)

26,5% (22)

28,9% (24)

2,4% (2)

1,2% (1)

1,2% (1)


1,2% (1)

3,6% (3)

21,7% (18)

32,5% (27)

37,3% (31)

1,2% (1)

1,2% (1)

1,2% (1)


10,8% (9)

13,3% (11)

22,9% (19)

25,3% (21)

12,0% (10)

14,5% (12)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)




Less

important Little

importance Medium


Very important

Don't know



8,4% (7)

19,3% (16)

32,5% (27)

19,3% (16)

7,2% (6)

12,0% (10)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)

100% (83)


3,6% (3)

9,6% (8)

14,5% (12)

41,0% (34)

27,7% (23)

2,4% (2)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


6,0% (5)

9,6% (8)

15,7% (13)

45,8% (38)

19,3% (16)

2,4% (2)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


13,3% (11)

21,7% (18)

32,5% (27)

20,5% (17)

6,0% (5)

1,2% (1)

1,2% (1)


1,2% (1)

6,0% (5)

26,5% (22)

39,8% (33)

20,5% (17)

2,4% (2)

2,4% (2)

1,2% (1)


4,8% (4)

16,9% (14)

26,5% (22)

30,1% (25)

15,7% (13)

4,8% (4)

0,0% (0)

1,2% (1)


Management

77


Italy



No need

to improve



Need to improve


Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


3,2% (3)

33,0% (31)

35,1% (33)

26,6% (25)

2,1% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

100% (94)


0,0% (0)

1,1% (1)

24,5% (23)

35,1% (33)

38,3% (36)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


1,1% (1)

6,4% (6)

27,7% (26)

40,4% (38)

21,3% (20)

2,1% (2)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


1,1% (1)

6,4% (6)

24,5% (23)

37,2% (35)

30,9% (29)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


1,1% (1)

8,5% (8)

24,5% (23)

30,9% (29)

33,0% (31)

2,1% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


11,7% (11)

25,5% (24)

34,0% (32)

16,0% (15)

2,1% (2)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

2,1% (2)

19,1% (18)

40,4% (38)

36,2% (34)

1,1% (1)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


23,4% (22)

31,9% (30)

13,8% (13)

6,4% (6)

5,3% (5)

2,1% (2)

0,0% (0)


4,3% (4)

27,7% (26)

42,6% (40)

22,3% (21)

2,1% (2)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


4,3% (4)

20,2% (19)

26,6% (25)

46,8% (44)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


30,9% (29)

6,4% (6)

19,1% (18)

17,0% (16)

8,5% (8)

17,0% (16)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

4,3% (4)

22,3% (21)

27,7% (26)

43,6% (41)

2,1% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


5,3% (5)

27,7% (26)

31,9% (30)

30,9% (29)

2,1% (2)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


4,3% (4)

16,0% (15)

34,0% (32)

25,5% (24)

13,8% (13)

3,2% (3)

3,2% (3)

0,0% (0)


5,3% (5)

27,7% (26)

30,9% (29)

34,0% (32)

0,0% (0)

2,1% (2)

0,0% (0)


5,3% (5)

29,8% (28)

38,3% (36)

24,5% (23)

1,1% (1)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


5,3% (5)

13,8% (13)

34,0% (32)

43,6% (41)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)

0,0% (0)


1,1% (1)

3,2% (3)

29,8% (28)

38,3% (36)

22,3% (21)

4,3% (4)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)


Management

78




Not

important at all

Little importance

Medium importance

Important Very




6,4% (6)

27,7% (26)

31,9% (30)

24,5% (23)

2,1% (2)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)

100% (94)


1,1% (1)

8,5% (8)

19,1% (18)

27,7% (26)

38,3% (36)

0,0% (0)

2,1% (2)

3,2% (3)


4,3% (4)

8,5% (8)

24,5% (23)

38,3% (36)

20,2% (19)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)


1,1% (1)

6,4% (6)

27,7% (26)

27,7% (26)

28,7% (27)

4,3% (4)

1,1% (1)

3,2% (3)


7,4% (7)

27,7% (26)

31,9% (30)

20,2% (19)

8,5% (8)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)


4,3% (4)

25,5% (24)

36,2% (34)

16,0% (15)

11,7% (11)

3,2% (3)

3,2% (3)


2,1% (2)

27,7% (26)

36,2% (34)

23,4% (22)

6,4% (6)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)


0,0% (0)

2,1% (2)

12,8% (12)

31,9% (30)

48,9% (46)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)


0,0% (0)

7,4% (7)

11,7% (11)

43,6% (41)

29,8% (28)

4,3% (4)

0,0% (0)

3,2% (3)


4,3% (4)

10,6% (10)

33,0% (31)

27,7% (26)

17,0% (16)

3,2% (3)

1,1% (1)

3,2% (3)




Less

important Little

importance Medium


Very important

Don't know



4,3% (4)

6,4% (6)

20,2% (19)

34,0% (32)

27,7% (26)

3,2% (3)

0,0% (0)

4,3% (4)

100% (94)


0,0% (0)

5,3% (5)

18,1% (17)

38,3% (36)

31,9% (30)

1,1% (1)

1,1% (1)

4,3% (4)


0,0% (0)

1,1% (1)

8,5% (8)

39,4% (37)

45,7% (43)

1,1% (1)

0,0% (0)

4,3% (4)


4,3% (4)

19,1% (18)

38,3% (36)

28,7% (27)

5,3% (5)

0,0% (0)

4,3% (4)


1,1% (1)

3,2% (3)

22,3% (21)

31,9% (30)

33,0% (31)

4,3% (4)

0,0% (0)

4,3% (4)


0,0% (0)

7,4% (7)

31,9% (30)

27,7% (26)

23,4% (22)

5,3% (5)

0,0% (0)

4,3% (4)


Management

79


Portugal



No need to improve



Need to improve


Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


2,4% (1)

23,8% (10)

42,9% (18)

31,0% (13)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

100% (42)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

26,2% (11)

40,5% (17)

33,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


2,4% (1)

2,4% (1)

31,0% (13)

38,1% (16)

26,2% (11)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

23,8% (10)

42,9% (18)

28,6% (12)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

28,6% (12)

28,6% (12)

38,1% (16)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


14,3% (6)

26,2% (11)

38,1% (16)

21,4% (9)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

16,7% (7)

50,0% (21)

31,0% (13)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


26,2% (11)

26,2% (11)

23,8% (10)

11,9% (5)

7,1% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


9,5% (4)

26,2% (11)

31,0% (13)

33,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


9,5% (4)

31,0% (13)

28,6% (12)

23,8% (10)

4,8% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

26,2% (11)

35,7% (15)

33,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

14,3% (6)

26,2% (11)

57,1% (24)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


7,1% (3)

35,7% (15)

21,4% (9)

33,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


2,4% (1)

9,5% (4)

35,7% (15)

23,8% (10)

23,8% (10)

4,8% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


4,8% (2)

31,0% (13)

33,3% (14)

31,0% (13)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

26,2% (11)

40,5% (17)

33,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


4,8% (2)

26,2% (11)

38,1% (16)

31,0% (13)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

7,1% (3)

33,3% (14)

31,0% (13)

26,2% (11)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)


Management

80




Not important

at all

Little importanc

e

Medium importanc

e Important

Very important

Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


4,8% (2)

16,7% (7)

33,3% (14)

33,3% (14)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

100% (42)


0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

21,4% (9)

31,0% (13)

31,0% (13)

4,8% (2)

2,4% (1)

4,8% (2)


2,4% (1)

2,4% (1)

28,6% (12)

35,7% (15)

23,8% (10)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

33,3% (14)

42,9% (18)

14,3% (6)

4,8% (2)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


2,4% (1)

28,6% (12)

45,2% (19)

19,0% (8)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


2,4% (1)

33,3% (14)

35,7% (15)

21,4% (9)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

19,0% (8)

42,9% (18)

28,6% (12)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

11,9% (5)

42,9% (18)

40,5% (17)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

28,6% (12)

40,5% (17)

23,8% (10)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

4,8% (2)


4,8% (2)

4,8% (2)

26,2% (11)

23,8% (10)

35,7% (15)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)




Less important

Little importanc

e

Medium importanc

e Important

Very important

Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

16,7% (7)

38,1% (16)

35,7% (15)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

100% (42)


0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

28,6% (12)

38,1% (16)

19,0% (8)

7,1% (3)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

9,5% (4)

21,4% (9)

64,3% (27)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

19,0% (8)

42,9% (18)

33,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

19,0% (8)

28,6% (12)

45,2% (19)

0,0% (0)

2,4% (1)

4,8% (2)


0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)

21,4% (9)

40,5% (17)

26,2% (11)

2,4% (1)

0,0% (0)

4,8% (2)


Management

81


Spain



No need to improve



Need to improve


Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


1,7% (1)

21,7% (13)

30,0% (18)

38,3% (23)

5,0% (3)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)

100% (60)


1,7% (1)

3,3% (2)

16,7% (10)

38,3% (23)

36,7% (22)

3,3% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


1,7% (1)

5,0% (3)

33,3% (20)

38,3% (23)

18,3% (11)

1,7% (1)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

5,0% (3)

28,3% (17)

35,0% (21)

31,7% (19)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


1,7% (1)

3,3% (2)

23,3% (14)

40,0% (24)

31,7% (19)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


3,3% (2)

26,7% (16)

40,0% (24)

23,3% (14)

5,0% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

5,0% (3)

13,3% (8)

36,7% (22)

41,7% (25)

1,7% (1)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)

Use of external communication experts 11,7%

(7) 18,3% (11)

28,3% (17)

23,3% (14)

11,7% (7)

6,7% (4)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


15,0% (9)

23,3% (14)

40,0% (24)

15,0% (9)

3,3% (2)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


8,3% (5)

20,0% (12)

28,3% (17)

31,7% (19)

10,0% (6)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)


3,3% (2)

3,3% (2)

21,7% (13)

40,0% (24)

26,7% (16)

5,0% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


0,0% (0)

1,7% (1)

11,7% (7)

41,7% (25)

43,3% (26)

0,0% (0)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)


3,3% (2)

31,7% (19)

38,3% (23)

23,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)


10,0% (6)

23,3% (14)

23,3% (14)

21,7% (13)

16,7% (10)

5,0% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


13,3% (8)

16,7% (10)

38,3% (23)

26,7% (16)

1,7% (1)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)


1,7% (1)

18,3% (11)

38,3% (23)

41,7% (25)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


5,0% (3)

15,0% (9)

38,3% (23)

36,7% (22)

5,0% (3)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


1,7% (1)

5,0% (3)

31,7% (19)

36,7% (22)

23,3% (14)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)


Management

82




Not important

at all

Little importanc

e

Medium importanc

e Important

Very important

Don't know

Not replied

n.a. Total


3,3% (2)

33,3% (20)

31,7% (19)

20,0% (12)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

6,7% (4)

100% (60)


0,0% (0)

5,0% (3)

16,7% (10)

40,0% (24)

30,0% (18)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)

6,7% (4)


6,7% (4)

11,7% (7)

31,7% (19)

28,3% (17)

15,0% (9)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

6,7% (4)


5,0% (3)

8,3% (5)

21,7% (13)

25,0% (15)

28,3% (17)

5,0% (3)

0,0% (0)

6,7% (4)


5,0% (3)

28,3% (17)

33,3% (20)

23,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

6,7% (4)


5,0% (3)

20,0% (12)

33,3% (20)

28,3% (17)

1,7% (1)

1,7% (1)

6,7% (4)


6,7% (4)

33,3% (20)

36,7% (22)

10,0% (6)

1,7% (1)

3,3% (2)

6,7% (4)


1,7% (1)

1,7% (1)

8,3% (5)

38,3% (23)

43,3% (26)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

6,7% (4)


1,7% (1)

1,7% (1)

21,7% (13)

45,0% (27)

15,0% (9)

6,7% (4)

1,7% (1)

6,7% (4)


5,0% (3)

13,3% (8)

23,3% (14)

26,7% (16)

20,0% (12)

3,3% (2)

1,7% (1)

6,7% (4)




Less important

Little importance

Medium importance

Important Very


Not replied

n.a. Total


1,7% (1)

5,0% (3)

18,3% (11)

36,7% (22)

28,3% (17)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)

8,3% (5)

100% (60)


0,0% (0)

5,0% (3)

23,3% (14)

30,0% (18)

30,0% (18)

3,3% (2)

0,0% (0)

8,3% (5)


0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

15,0% (9)

20,0% (12)

56,7% (34)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

8,3% (5)


1,7% (1)

11,7% (7)

36,7% (22)

40,0% (24)

0,0% (0)

1,7% (1)

8,3% (5)


3,3% (2)

1,7% (1)

18,3% (11)

45,0% (27)

23,3% (14)

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

8,3% (5)


0,0% (0)

5,0% (3)

20,0% (12)

36,7% (22)

28,3% (17)

1,7% (1)

0,0% (0)

8,3% (5)

D 2.2 Mapping of weakness, strengths and competences of...

Documents

Transcript of D 2.2 Mapping of weakness, strengths and competences of...