Journal of Prevention - Recommended structure for EUPC country experiences (practitioner narratives)

Practitioner Narratives describing EUPC country experiences should follow the below structure to ensure that articles are consistent and comparable in terms of the information they provide. The structure consists of:

Common headings (in bold) – if possible, to be used in all Practitioner Narratives describing EUPC country experiences

Questions (bullet points) – these do not have to be addressed exactly in this way or order but are intended as a guide to support the manuscript-writing and to ensure consistency of information across articles. Questions that are not applicable can be disregarded, but relevant explanations can be included if deemed relevant.

To support the peer review process, all information that directly identifies the authors or their country (e.g. personal names, names of institutional stakeholders, country, city and other place references) must be removed from the manuscript version submitted for peer review and replaced with descriptive placeholders (as in the headings shown below).  Articles failing to fulfill this requirement will be returned to authors.

Please note – for the purposes of this Special Issue, we refer to all EUPC activities as  “projects”, even if they are not formal projects.

1. Introducing EUPC in [Country name]

The aim of this section is to give readers an overview of the status quo of EUPC in your country. Relevant questions to consider include:

• When did the EUPC project first start in your country (e.g. when did you start planning the first training or decide to become a EUPC trainer and/or coordinator, was there a pilot implementation)? If applicable: what is the timeline of your EUPC project (only relevant where EUPC is implemented as a formal project)
• What is the name of the EUPC in your local language?
• Which EUPC versions are being used in your country / which one(s) will you write about in this article?
• Why was EUPC introduced in your country? What needs was it going to meet, what gap was it going to fill? What was the main motivation? What were the (national or organisational) aims? How does EUPC correspond to national strategies and policies? What was EUPC’s unique selling point compared with other existing trainings in your country? (report findings of formal or informal needs assessment, if any)
• What has been achieved since the project started? How many trainings have been delivered (total / per year), how many participants and how many trainers have been certified? What formats have been used (face-to-face or online)? Are EUPC trainings still happening/planned or has the project been suspended for any reasons?
• Geographical coverage – is EUPC implemented in / accessible to all regions in your country? Is the current scope of the implementation primarily at the national level or rather regional, local, municipal? Is it limited to certain areas in your country?
• Have evaluations been conducted, and if so, what type? (level of detail will depend on the kind of evaluation) ? (include reference/weblink to evaluation report if available)
• Is there a website/report/other publications where further details specific to EUPC in your country can be found? (include reference/weblink as applicable, the resource can be in your local language)

Nota bene: It is not necessary to give a lengthy introduction about EUPC in general, as this will be covered in the general Introduction to the Special Issue.

2. How EUPC is organised in [Country name]

The aim of this section is to explain how EUPC is organised in your country, what is the implementation model/system/structure and what are its main features (e.g. governmental / non-governmental, centralised / decentralised, formal / informal …). Relevant questions to consider include:

• How is the EUPC project structured in your country (ideally visualised as an organigram) – what individuals/organisations are involved, how do they collaborate? Is the structure centralised or decentralised?
• Is it a formal project (e.g. with budget line, project manager)? If applicable: which organisation (if any) is in charge of leadership/coordination and why was it chosen/how did that come about? Are any individuals besides EUPC trainers involved in project implementation (e.g. as project coordinators, …)?
• How is EUPC funded in your country? Is there a legal basis, ear-marked funding or similar funding structure to finance EUPC implementation? How is long-term sustainability ensured?
• Is EUPC integrated in broader trainings/structures?
• Does the EUPC certificate have any particular value in your country, e.g. as a prerequisite for funding receipt, incorporated in quality criteria, recognised as accreditation by official bodies? Please elaborate (e.g. national/some regions, all settings/providers or specific ones)
• What organisations do EUPC trainers come from? How do trainers coordinate their work? Is there any particular system/procedures in place for recruiting/managing trainers? What support do trainers receive in your country after the training-of-trainers (ToT), if any?
• Is any monitoring in place in your country regarding EUPC implementation? Any procedures to ensure quality of EUPC implementation in your country? What data is collected, if any?
• Has the organisation of the EUPC project in your country changed over time, and if so, how?

3. A typical EUPC training in [Country name]

The aim of this section is to give some insights into practical details concerning delivery of the EUPC course. Relevant questions to consider include:

• What does a “typical” EUPC training look like (e.g. number of participants, format, number of trainers, agenda)? Has this changed over time, and if so, how? (possibly table with agenda) If no “typical” training: describe your most recent training
• What major changes (if any) were undertaken to the EUPC material, and why?
• Who is invited to the trainings, e.g. how do you understand/define “DOPs” in your country? Who are they? How do you reach them, how/where is EUPC advertised?
• Is EUPC offered to participants free of charge / how much does participation cost? Do participant fees cover implementation costs?

4. Lessons learnt

The aim of this section is to reflect on what worked well and what did not work as well, and to provide additional information that can help explain the successes or difficulties of EUPC implementation in your country. Relevant questions to consider include:

• What is the added value of EUPC in your country, what has changed since the introduction e.g. as reported by participants, but also for your organisation or other participating stakeholders? (if possible, please state the sources for these statements, include/refer to evaluation results if available)
• What challenges (expected or unexpected) did you meet and how did you overcome them? (e.g. deviations from the original plan, how EUPC is understood/used by other stakeholders in your country)
• What opportunities were you able to use to implement/promote the project, or what opportunities did you purposefully create to implement/promote the project?
• What are some unresolved issues you are currently trying to address, or that you anticipate will need to be resolved in the near future?

Nota bene: the section “Lessons learnt“ should take up at least 30% of the article.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this section is to summarise your article and present its key messages to readers. Relevant questions to consider include:

• How would you summarise the status quo in your country regarding EUPC?
• Plans for the future e.g. what are planned or desired next steps in your country regarding EUPC?
• What would be your top recommendations for someone thinking about implementing EUPC in their country? What are your top “lessons learnt”?