Group Coordinators: Lis Alban / Lucie Collineau
WG4 aims to apply and assess selected evaluation methods to a series of country-based case studies.

As part of Phase 1 of CoEvalAMR, a series of case studies for the assessment of evaluation tools for integrated surveillance of AMU and AMR was undertaken (See Sandberg et al. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.620998). This work was based on an assessment methodology focusing on the user’s perception of the tool, developed by CoEvalAMR partners, where each tool was scored using (i) a series of pre-defined functional aspects (e.g., workability concerning the need for data, time, and people); (ii) a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)-approach of user experiences (e.g., things that I liked or that the tool covered well); and (iii) a number of predefined content themes related to scope (e.g., development purpose and collaboration). While the assessment methodology proved helpful to direct future evaluators toward the most adequate tool for their specific evaluation purpose, the surveillance evaluation users also suggested several areas for improvements.

In Phase 2 of CoEvalAMR, we have revised the initial assessment methodology among others based upon experience obtained in Phase 1. We are currently applying the revised methodology to additional/identical case studies. One of them is an evaluation of the OH-EpiCap tool, which is currently being developed as part of the EJP One Health MATRIX project. Here, eight country case studies are each evaluating OH-EpiCap.

In collaboration with WG2 (governance evaluation) and WG3 (impact evaluation), WG4 also aims to apply the new methodology developed for governance and impact evaluation in country case studies. In fact, the revision of the assessment methodology considered outputs from WG2 and WG3. More generally, WG4 aims to build a community of evaluators involved in national case studies for the evaluation of integrated surveillance of AMU and AMR, hence facilitating the sharing of experiences, challenges and possible solutions.

Expected deliverables: 
•    A paper describing the revised user’s perception methodology and the reasons behind the revision. 
•    A common paper using the revised methodology as well as individual case studies performed by participants in the WG, focusing on the identified updates of the assessment framework developed in Phase 1, as well as the common experiences related to evaluating governance and impact as developed in WG2 and WG3.